Resurrected Threads

[annandatje]

Is it against unwritten protocol here to respond to a resurrected thread?

 

Who remembers to click on original post to check date of thread?

 

As long as there is a response that bumps thread up to page 1, 2, or 3, I assume it is a current discussion.

[Free]

I think it would be useful to resurrect a thread about curriculum or even a general discussion which adds some value. Such discussions don't become outdated.

 

Resurrecting an old controversial topic or a current affairs discussion which happened last year can be confusing and annoying.

[Little Nyssa]

I didn't even notice the credit card discussion was 2 years old. I wonder why, particularly, someone wanted to bring it up again?

[The Governess]

Much of the time it is spam. I think spammers come across old posts by doing a google search and then they leave a post with a link to something related to the topic that they are trying to promote.

[annandatje]

I didn't even notice the credit card discussion was 2 years old. I wonder why, particularly, someone wanted to bring it up again?

 

 

I assumed that threads were resurrected because members probably did a search for topics that interested them and continued discussion.

 

Sometimes when a member starts a new thread on a particular topic, other members will link to previous threads about that topic, curriculum included.

[annandatje]

Much of the time it is spam. I think spammers come across old posts by doing a google search and then they leave a post with a link to something related to the topic that they are trying to promote.

 

 

Thanks. I had never noticed one of those.

[Carpe]

Thanks. I had never noticed one of those.

 

The mods are pretty fast at deleting them.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I've had people resurrect a post about my dd who was having trouble as a 5 year old. She is almost 10 now. The new advice on that thread had absolutely no benefit for me since she no longer had the problem.

 

I've seen controversial threads resurrected with the result that the moderators have had to lock the thread because controversy got stirred up again.

 

I've seen people get upset when they were all worried about a dangerously ill child to find out that the child was cured a couple of years ago.

 

But then a thread on lunch ideas or how to teach a unit on manatees is timeless.

 

So - it depends.

[Ester Maria]

Resurrecting old controversial threads is typically pot stirring, and as such to be avoided. Also, I tend to think that some of the past should remain past, so to speak - I would hate to resurrect something where there was obviously a full moon or something, or controversial people meanwhile even changed their opinions, etc. It seems kind of mean to me :confused:, "profitting" from an old controversy for whatever one wants to post, but maybe it is just me. So, as a rule, I do not resurrect anything controversial, in such cases I would start a new thread.

 

Another thing which I never do, because it also seems mean to me, is taking arguments and quotes from such older threads to discredit somebody in the present threads. Whenever I see it done with an obvious purpose to discredit somebody or shed a bad light on them, without genuine intentions, I interpret it as malevolent and unfair too (especially since a LOT happens within a year, two, three, or whatever the time elapsed between the old post and the new thread). Unfortunately, the board dynamic seems to be such that from time to time it happens. My tactic, again, is to let any controversial past remain - past. It is searchable anyway and if somebody really wants to access it, they can.

 

Resurrecting most "general" old threads is typically not pot stirring per se, but it gets somewhat pointless if the threads had exhausted themselves and died a peaceful death. Linking to them is fine, but typically I would not continue the conversation there, but in a newer thread. Also, new members join, new dynamic gets created, older contexts of the threads vanish and newer threads just seem more appropriate.

 

Overall, I think there are very few threads which sort of require to be resurrected or heavily linked to in the OP for the sake of continuity - Jean just provided a good example, typically such threads are not "general", but rather "specific" to some child or some situation, and resurrecting there often makes sense.

 

Most threads get resurrected by new members who searched for them / did not notice the thread was old / etc. It gets annoying - you think of replying, the notice the OP was written two years ago and the discussion has no continuity.

 

And then you have a question of what exactly is an "old" thread. I am typically fine with resurrecting anything within a month (heck, maybe even two) on specific boards, though maybe less on the general board - people get sick, go on vacations, have life happen, spend less time on boards, and they may have missed the discussion, but the dynamic is typically flexible enough for the resurrecting not to be "odd", and the context is largely the same. Still, anything which is half a year, a year, even OLDER - nah. Search for it if it really interests you to read it, but respect the new dynamic and the context that had meanwhile been created on the boards, especially if it was something controversial.